Clause 153
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:00 am

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 153, page 103, line 12, at end insert—

‘(ba) seek to further the conservation and recovery of marine flora and fauna in the district,’.

I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that furthering the conservation and recovery of the health of the marine flora and fauna in the district should be clearly spelled out as an objective of an IFCA. Clause 154 is about the protection of marine conservation zones, but not all the inshore waters will be a MCZ, so the purpose of this amendment is to spell out the importance of protecting, through further conservation and recovery, the marine flora and fauna outside MCZs, too.

I have perhaps spoken more than most about the interests of the fishing industry. Although much of the fish that our fishermen catch and bring to our coastal communities is sold to other states in Europe, we still eat a lot of fish in this country and that fish is caught in the sea. Farming fish is a less satisfactory method of producing fish for the marketplace than catching wild fish. Fishermen are often unfairly and inaccurately caricatured as the villains of the sea or the inconsiderate plunderers of the sea’s resources, and my amendment might appear to be anathema to them. It could be seen as a further step contrary to the interests of fishermen who simply want to help themselves to the marine resource free from any impediment.

On Second Reading, however, I pointed out that the fishing industry itself is keen to ensure that the marine resource is protected. It recognises that it needs sustainable fishing and it has a shared interest in ensuring that fish stocks can recover and that spawning stocks are protected. Fishermen, marine conservationists and marine biologists share an interest in ensuring that these things are properly regulated. Fishermen recognise how the viability of their own business is undermined if they are out there doing precisely the same as their competitors in the sea and going for the last fish in any particular water. It is therefore in their interest that the marine resource is protected, so they are often in favour of measures to achieve that. The closure of the Trevose spring spawning ground on the north coast of Cornwall is an example of an initiative that was proposed and promoted by the fishing industry itself.

I hope that the Minister realises that, rather than having a purely conservationist perspective, the amendment recognises a shared interest between the promotion of marine biodiversity and a sustainable fishing industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced this part of the debate? I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, but I hope to be able to explain why it is unnecessary and why, if we accepted it, it might lead to the very imbalance that he has talked about. I will give some clarification and a fair deal of reassurance.

Clause 153 sets out a requirement that IFCAs carry out their key duty in a way that is consistent with sustainable development. As was discussed in the other place, the breakdown of duties set out in the clause includes the pillars of sustainable development, and the need to balance environmental, social and economic drivers. In broad terms, IFCAs’ key duty requires them to have regard to all aspects of sustainable development in carrying out their functions.

In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Hunt recognised that an explicit reference to sustainable development in the clause would aid consistency and clarity and reinforce the fact that the Government take the sustainable development duty seriously. As such, clause 153(2)(c) places a requirement on IFCAs to take the necessary steps to contribute to sustainable development. We have also made a change to require the Secretary of State to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to make such a contribution.

As my noble Friend Lord Hunt said in the other place, the duty placed on IFCAs in relation to the recovery of marine flora and fauna includes, as outlined in clause 153(2)(b), a duty

“to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from”

the effects of exploitation when managing sea fisheries resources within their district. The marine environment is defined in clause 181, and includes flora and fauna that are dependent on, or associated with, a marine or coastal environment. As such, the duty already requires IFCAs to promote the recovery of marine flora and fauna. If a habitat has been damaged in the past by fishing, but is still able to recover, the authorities will have to weigh that in the balance when considering appropriate controls on fishermen. The authorities cannot take as a baseline the condition of the district from a certain date and ignore what it was like in the past.

On the duty to further conservation, it is important to note that IFCAs have a specific duty in MCZs, as outlined in clause 154, to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered. That will ensure that those sensitive areas are protected. Additionally, IFCAs, as public authorities, are required by clause 125(2) to exercise their functions in a way that best furthers, or, where that is not possible, least hinders, the conservation objectives of any MCZs in their districts. If they fail to do that, the relevant statutory conservation body can require them to explain why, and could publish that explanation. Where specific actions of IFCAs fail to meet their duty, they can be judicially reviewed.

In other areas, it is fundamental that IFCAs should be required to balance all the different aspects of sustainable development. A requirement to further conservation would unbalance that primary duty, so that conservation would be given undue prominence in relation to sustainable fisheries management. One motivation for adding a duty to further conservation to the Bill is to help drive culture change. There has been a lot of discussion about driving culture change when sea fisheries committees are replaced by IFCAs. Concerns have been expressed that SFCs are too influenced by commercial interests. Our view is that the range of statutory and other changes we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will mean that environmental protection is taken very seriously and becomes embedded in the way in which they operate. I will explain why. Most importantly, IFCAs will have new duties placed on them to balance the protection of the marine environment with the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries resources. That is a fundamental difference, as SFCs do not have that duty. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for IFCAs on how they are to meet the new duties. There will be full public consultation on that guidance. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury does not like the word but until we get a better one I am going to use  it—key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of that at the early stages through their role in the IFCA implementation work.

There will also be a range of other means to drive cultural change, most notably the restructuring of committee membership to include statutory seats for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Other members will be appointed by the MMO and will include people acquainted with the needs and opinions of the local fishing community and those with knowledge of or expertise in marine environmental matters. This includes representation from a range of sectors such as those with interests in environmental issues, recreational fishing and commercial matters. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for the MMO on the appointments process, which will ensure that IFCA membership reflects the needs of the districts and enables them to meet their new duties. Again, there will be full public consultation. Accountability will be ensured by the statutory requirements for IFCAs to produce annual plans, as we have heard, under clause 172 and reports, under clause 173. In addition, the Secretary of State must, as we discussed earlier, submit a four-yearly report to Parliament, as set out in clause 178. I believe that the weight of all those requirements will drive culture change and ensure that IFCAs effectively deliver their new duties, both in MCZs but also across the wider district that they cover.

As Lord Hunt said in the other place, placing an explicit duty on IFCAs to further the conservation of the marine environment outside MCZs would fundamentally alter and unbalance the primary duty to manage the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in a sustainable way. IFCAs are going to have to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting sea fisheries resources with the need to protect the marine environment. That is consistent with the MMO’s position, and is in line with Government’s wider commitments to the principles of sustainable development. In the other place, there was recognition of the need for IFCAs, in meeting the general duty, to take into account all aspects of sustainable development. For example, Baroness Carnegy of Lour spoke of the importance of balance when considering the interests of local people and conservation of the environment. Another motivation for change to the clause is to ensure that IFCAs play their part in delivering the requirements of the water framework directive, to which I referred earlier. I hope that gives some clarity.

To conclude, IFCAs’ new duties in MCZs will require them to further the conservation objectives in those sensitive areas. Elsewhere, IFCAs’ general duty will ensure the protection of the environment is properly balanced against social and economic considerations. The range of statutory and other changes that we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will ensure they can deliver their new duties. I hope that, with that extensive reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for that extensive tour de force on various clauses and his reassurance on the issue. Clause 153(2)(b) deals with the need to promote “recovery” from

“the effects of such exploitation”.

That is clearly recovery from fisheries exploitation, whereas the IFCAs may well look at the recovery of marine flora and fauna from impacts other than fishing. On clause 154, as I said a moment ago, that only applies where a MCZ has been designated. The Minister quite rightly emphasises the importance of getting the balance right, perpetually referring to the requirement to further the cause of sustainable development. Having said that, may I refer him to the debate that we had last week, as I remain unhappy about the lack of an adequate definition of “sustainable development” and the tenets that underlie it?

The Minister argued strongly that there is a wide stakeholder interest, which is welcome and will reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that these people are, as it were, old fishing stakes—perhaps that is a more acceptable metaphor to him. In my own area, there is welcome news that the integrity of both Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will be retained and that, unlike Wales, there will be no bleed-over into bits of England. Unlike the position for the Welsh, the national integrity of Cornwall will not be affected. With the creation of 10 districts, the ability to achieve those outcomes will be much enhanced. On that basis and the reassurances offered by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.